Search results

I, MMiqa, declare that I will be contesting the Office of President. My Vice Presidential running mate will be UrbanDispatchMC. I will be running as a member of the People's Democracy. Edit:My running mate is also a member of People's Democracy.

Your Honor, a brief clarifying question. The Defendant moved for summary judgment on Facts 1 through 5 only. Facts 6 through 15 were amended in discovery, and for over three weeks the Defendant did not amend its Answer or contest any of them. The Defendant, through its representative and...

No your Honor, as seen, I amended the Facts and one of them was that there were 5 sitting Councillors.

I agree with your statement your Honor.

Your Honor, the press releases' date on the evidence P-010 is 4th of August. It is available and no secret in the BAR Discord. We do not deny the fact motion was done on 1st of August, but it has passed on 4th of August. The Plaintiff has shown the evidence of that, and the evidence the...

Your Honor, since Matthew100x is not the AG anymore and is now Justice, the Plaintiff would like to know if who is representing the Department of Homeland Security/Commonwealth of Redmont.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Your Honor, I did not have the full ongoing with the Motion to Censure MMiqa and its procedures. I, MMiqa, the Plaintiff, had the information due to being in an different time zone, that I have seen that...

I have updated it your Honor.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE Your Honor, As the Defendant failed to realize, on September 1st, the Amendment to Complaint was granted in the Post #140. According to Rule 3.7, "When an amended complaint is submitted 72 hours before...

I have stated: Unfair punishment: I have received a strike and hefty punishment for speaking out of turn, in my own case, where I represent myself. Ebborsnam multiple times did that in rykazard case while you, Justice Muggy21, was the PO. Superwoops was and still is my PO in MMiqa v. Bar...

Your Honor, I have no idea what Defendant's interpretations are, thats why I was asking this question. I have my right to ask interrogatories and the question was accepted. According to Rule 4.8 "they must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability." They in this sence is the...

MOTION TO RECINSIDER Your Honor, CreeperTD has not answered question 5 specifically, where the Plaintiff has asked "how many Councillors would need to vote in favor to pass a motion if there are 5 sitting Councillors in the Bar Association of Redmont?" If honorable Judge thinks otherwise and...

Client & counsel name: MMiqa, Self-Represented Appealed case name & style: MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] DCR 142 Appealed Court Order: [2026] DCR 142 Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff Reason for appeal: The Appellant, MMiqa, was fined 20 PU for using...

P-002: From hausfeld.com, stating "One of the most significant challenges currently facing legal professionals is the phenomenon of AI hallucinations which occur when an AI system generates information that sounds plausible but is entirely false, such as fictitious case law. Unlike human error...

P-001: Section used in the appeal from thr IBM's website.

Edited this part to erase a possible confusion.

I have fixed some grammar mistakes, I believe the PO can see the changes I have made. For reference, laws that talk about Ex Parte Communication: The Judicial Code of Ethics, Section 3.3, defines ex parte communication as: - "Ex parte communication (private discussion with one party about a...

No, I have not, Justice Muggy21. I filed my defense in this matter, but Judge Superwoops's order did not address the core legal arguments raised, including the statutes I have relied upon. Given that this defense already addresses the same conduct now under appeal, and that repeating the same...

Client & counsel name: MMiqa, Self-Represented Appealed case name & style: MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] DCR 142 Appealed Court Order: [2026] DCR 142 Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff Reason for appeal: I. THERE IS NO PROOF OF PRIVATELY CONTACTING...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE Your Honor, The Defendant's answers contain a direct self-contradiction and a legal error that the Plaintiff wishes to bring to the Court's attention. First, the self-contradiction. The Defendant answered...